Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> We already have a two test balloons, both defined in
> "reftable/system.h":
>
> #define REFTABLE_FLOCK_INIT ((struct reftable_flock){ .fd = -1, })
>
> #define REFTABLE_TMPFILE_INIT ((struct reftable_tmpfile) { .fd = -1, })
>
> Both of those are getting used in a way that'd break if those weren't
> properly supported in "reftable/stack.c":
>
> for (i = 0; i < last - first + 1; i++)
> table_locks[i] = REFTABLE_FLOCK_INIT;
>
> tab_file = REFTABLE_TMPFILE_INIT;
>
> Those are rather recent additions though, released with Git 2.50. I also
> totally missed that we didn't have any test balloons for this syntax.
> Should we maybe retroactively mark them as test balloons instead of
> converting and marking some new sites?
That sounds good. I was wondering if it is easier to keep track of
things to add a new section to the CodingGuildlines document,
perhaps like this?
Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git c/Documentation/CodingGuidelines w/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
index 6350949f2e..dd3dbb9c57 100644
--- c/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
+++ w/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
@@ -298,6 +298,14 @@ For C programs:
. since late 2021 with 44ba10d6, we have had variables declared in
the for loop "for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)".
+ C99 features we have test balloons for:
+
+ . since late 2024 with v2.48.0-rc0~20, we have test balloons for
+ compound literal syntax, e.g., (struct foo){ .member = value };
+ our hope is that no platforms we care about have trouble using
+ them, and officially adopt its wider use in mid 2026. Do not add
+ more use of the syntax until that happens.
+
New C99 features that we cannot use yet:
. %z and %zu as a printf() argument for a size_t (the %z being for
